A New York pharmacy has been on the receiving end of a backlash after announcing a new store policy that "all male customers are subject to a 7% Man Tax".The unofficial levy was announced in the window of Thompson Chemists in the Soho district of Manhattan on Monday, alongside another sign declaring that "all female customers shop tax-free".
Then there's this...
" " 'Reverse sexism'This prompted a swift online reaction with many people claiming that this was "reverse sexism". "
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS 'REVERSE SEXISM' - SEXISM IS SEXISM.
If I'm not mistaken it's a protest about mens razors costing less than womens razors...
i.e. razor the marketing departments of razor manufacturers correctly calculated that women are gullible enough to pay extra for a razor with a pink handle... and as a man that's my fault because?
Good publicity for them. They are not taxing men any more simply letting women have similar products without having to pay the sales tax, which makes them the same price as the male equivalent.
If I'm not mistaken it's a protest about mens razors costing less than womens razors...
i.e. razor the marketing departments of razor manufacturers correctly calculated that women are gullible enough to pay extra for a razor with a pink handle... and as a man that's my fault because?
Ah, the pink tax. Manufacturers and retailers are 'sexist' because men's products tend to be cheaper to produce and because women are more willing to pay for useless gimmicks and exotic ingredients.
Anyway, I don't think this will turn out to be a smart business decision for the pharmacy (assuming it's even legal). Then again, it's in Soho, NYC...
I don't agree with what they are dong but I think you are deliberately trying to stir by not explaining their seasoning behind the posters. It's to protest the fact that women's products cost on average 7% more than men's even if they are exactly the same. Also I don't believe that they actually charged the men an extra 7% anyway.
I don't agree with what they are dong but I think you are deliberately trying to stir by not explaining their seasoning behind the posters. It's to protest the fact that women's products cost on average 7% more than men's even if they are exactly the same. Also I don't believe that they actually charged the men an extra 7% anyway.
If women weren't so willing to spend more on products because they're pink or because they have weird and wonderful oils and extracts in them, they wouldn't be paying more.
Female consumer behavior is mostly to blame, not the retailers and manufacturers driven by profit rather than sexist ideology.
Have you ever heard of "sex discrimination," you strike me as the sort of person who has, bit unlike the gender pay gap and otjer such proven *******s this will be based on, this is trivially sexist.
Have you ever heard of "sex discrimination," you strike me as the sort of person who has, bit unlike the gender pay gap and otjer such proven *******s this will be based on, this is trivially sexist.
Try reading the article and then try understanding what it says.
Try reading the article and then try understanding what it says.
The willingness of women to spend more than men on feeling better about themselves then, that wonderful thing called the free(ish) market. If women didn't want to spend that bit extra there is a very simple way not to.
To be fair the type of manlet who would shop there on his own wouldn't be too upset with "reverse" sexism. Then you have the consideration that most normal guys would just accompany their girlfriend (I can't imagine why women wouldn't want to shop somewhere with lower prices) there and try not to stir up an argument over something like this.
I think you'll find a lot of men, whether they are with girls or not, wouldn't shop in such a shop in the first place with such bonkers and socially backwards rules. if you had a shop that said "christians 10% off - atheists +10%" for instance, would either of those demographics really look to the shop as an ethical one? what kind of twisted nutter would actually entertain the idea of going into it if it's actually willing to put up a ****ing sign saying something like "(n word)s **** off"~? yes, I used that example because this looks A LOT like jim crow. or something even worse:
I agree with the sentiment - it's just that I see the average customer there as being a lot more... tolerant of this sort of behaviour than us. I personally wouldn't shop at a shop like that with or without my girlfriend, but I fear that the average dude in Soho may be different.
Spoiler
in my honest view, if a guy on his own saw those signs, off he would **** and never come back, because **** having to pay more when you could pay less.